Toronto Star reporter Ghada Alsharif spent six weeks working as an Uber Eats food courier and made a shockingly low wage. Uber says this experience was ‘atypical’ — but workers say differently.
In my experience, plenty of local shops delivered. And when Uber eats came about, they had to fire their own delivery people because so many would check Uber eats first. Not to mention the restaurants get less on the food, when small, locally owned restaurants are already surviving on razor thin margins.
So the idea for these services is basically “I don’t want to go to my local restaurant to pick up food, so I’m going to financially hurt them so a middleman can profit by forcing them to deliver to me (which plenty were doing already).”
My point is it’s such a uniquely stupid, uniquely American concept that hurts everyone involved, and makes a ton of money for one large company—who completely inserted themselves into it unnecessarily.
If the argument is whether or not there should be a moral dilemma when ordering from them, I say yes. We can’t absolve ourselves of our laziness on this one, I don’t think.
And the likening it to insurance companies was strictly for the purpose of a meaningless middleman who changed the structure of the system they exist in, in order to profit unnecessarily. I tried to make it clear the likeness stopped there, but maybe I wasn’t.
ETA: you also can’t discount the factor of newer restaurants trying to open, who now don’t even have the foothold of existing in-house delivery in order to wrest some of their own profits back from fuckin uber. For those previously existing businesses, of course some of their established customers would still use their delivery, but UE bit off a huge chunk of their business. But newer places? Forget it. They don’t stand a chance. It’s just a leech company looking at smaller businesses’ profits and saying, “hey, by name recognition alone, we could take a bunch of that by making an app and not even hiring employees but forcing people to use their own vehicles so we don’t have to pay for any of that shit.”
In my experience, plenty of local shops delivered. And when Uber eats came about, they had to fire their own delivery people because so many would check Uber eats first. Not to mention the restaurants get less on the food, when small, locally owned restaurants are already surviving on razor thin margins.
So the idea for these services is basically “I don’t want to go to my local restaurant to pick up food, so I’m going to financially hurt them so a middleman can profit by forcing them to deliver to me (which plenty were doing already).”
My point is it’s such a uniquely stupid, uniquely American concept that hurts everyone involved, and makes a ton of money for one large company—who completely inserted themselves into it unnecessarily.
If the argument is whether or not there should be a moral dilemma when ordering from them, I say yes. We can’t absolve ourselves of our laziness on this one, I don’t think.
And the likening it to insurance companies was strictly for the purpose of a meaningless middleman who changed the structure of the system they exist in, in order to profit unnecessarily. I tried to make it clear the likeness stopped there, but maybe I wasn’t.
ETA: you also can’t discount the factor of newer restaurants trying to open, who now don’t even have the foothold of existing in-house delivery in order to wrest some of their own profits back from fuckin uber. For those previously existing businesses, of course some of their established customers would still use their delivery, but UE bit off a huge chunk of their business. But newer places? Forget it. They don’t stand a chance. It’s just a leech company looking at smaller businesses’ profits and saying, “hey, by name recognition alone, we could take a bunch of that by making an app and not even hiring employees but forcing people to use their own vehicles so we don’t have to pay for any of that shit.”
It’s indefensible.